Skip to main content

tv   Planning Commission Special Regular Meeting 51916  SFGTV  May 22, 2016 3:00am-7:01am PDT

3:00 am
park. >> there is a section, and account alerts and information on parking and all kinds of stuff, it is so easy to use that even you can use it. >> that is smart. >> are you giving me a compliment. >> i think that i am. >> wow, thanks. >> now you can buy dinner. access useful information, any >> good afternoon -- excuse me, good morning and welcome to the san francisco planning commission special meeting for thursday, may 19th, 2016. i would like to remind members of the public to silence any mobile devices during this proceedinging rho, commissioner president richards. commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner hillis >> and commissioner moore? we do expect commissioners johnson and wu to arrive at
3:01 am
some point. commissioners, today on your special calendar item 1 public comment on matters to be considered for discussion in closed session. i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment for item no. 1? okay public comment is closed. >> item 2, consideration -- consider adoption of motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding matters listed below on your agenda as conference with legal counsel. >> commissioner antonini. >> so moved. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> thank you, commissioners on that motion then to assert attorney-client privilege, commissioner ain'tioni. >> aye. >> commissioner hillis . aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner richards. >> aye. >> and commission president fong. >> aye. >> that passes unanimously 5-0 and i will now move to go into closed session. so
3:02 am
>> thank you sfgovtv so item 4 following the closed session the planning commission will report on any action during the closed session and consider a motion whether or not to disclose any items. >> commissioner moore. >> a motion to assert the attorney/client privilege not to disclose. >> second. >> thank you, commissioners there is a motion there is a motion that has been seconded to not disclosure any part of discussions during closed session commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero. >> and i will report in open session no action was taken by
3:03 am
the planning commission okay. >> so no other items on the agenda we'll adjourn this meeting. >> the meeting is 2016, 2016, disruptions of any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the
3:04 am
commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner vice president richards commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner antonini is present just not at the place at the momentum commissioners, that places you under your is items proposed for continuance pennsylvania street large project authorization is proposed middle september 2016 and item 2 cambridge street the conditional use authorization is proposed for inner definite continuance commissioner further on our agenda we've received a request to continue items 10 ab and
3:05 am
1y69d through bryant street conditional use authorization and large project authorization to june 2nd. >> okay. thank you. >> any public comment on this item? now 3 items proposed for continuance? >> i do have two speaker cards for 2000 bryant items 10 ab, however, at this time you can only submit testimony on the matter of continuance. >> (calling names). >> hi jordan davis he support the continuance one thousand percent. >> david gibson i support of
3:06 am
continuance one thousand percent thank you. >> michael san francisco counsel most of i have a copy of the letter i didn't produce 7 copies one is short sorry but we also support the tun we wish it were a couple of weeks longer than or longer but can work through issues with the developer if they're willing to come to the table and work with us we look forward to that prospect thank you. >> hi commissioners most of you heard from me way two of this week i support a continuance i was here hoping it would be much longer two weeks i
3:07 am
thank you for considering that message coming out that the developer should sit down with the labor and community alliance that has formed more resources to bring to the table and also has increased needs for this type of project to really be scrutinized considered on all the impacts that will have between this project and the other 2000 luxury units in the pipeline i urge you to consider postponing this further i've been asking for them to sit down building what the chronicle said do mayor was unaware of a proposal for the last month a lot going on in the mayor's office i don't understand i want to sit down with the mayor's office of housing as they clearly are dealing with the
3:08 am
developer i want to marry community - help facilitate these negotiations we would like to sit down and discuss we have many, many people coming on their way by the way, we only just now heard the continuance it grant and have heard that was grand after our testimony please be prepared at general public comment there are a couple hundred people coming i urge you giving us more time beyond june 2nd thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners steve with mary tell on behalf of the project sponsor we don't object to a time longer i understand your calendar we're not in opposition of the continuance thank you.
3:09 am
>> is there any additional public comment on the items proposed for continuance. >> my name is rick hall i support a continuance i believe that a month would be much more appropriate than two weeks i think i certainly agree that the developer and the community should sit down together but i'll also got another southern with the rp e i don't think that can be approved what the information provided as far. >> sorry to interrupt you but at the point in time we can only speak to the matter of continuance. >> i understand. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay not seeing any, public
3:10 am
comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> well, i'm happy to see an offer that has project that might help to fund perhaps a few more affordable units that make the project an even better project in my opinion it is a very good project it would be nice if we heard about that a couple dares earlier it is important we continue to the second of june i think the generous offer we'll find out is legitimate. >> what it about encompasses and hopefully without changes to the project as it is new designed this is laid out with that, well with the exception of more affordable units and so i'm going to move to continue to june 2nd. >> second. >> second. >> as well as the other items. >> along with yeah, all the other -
3:11 am
>> commissioner. >> you went for all the items to continue. >> well - call them separately. >> items one and two i believe. >> thank you. >> second. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> just a question for the gentleman. >> you asked for longer two weeks what can you get done in two weeks. >> if discussions are fairly intense and information is adequately forthcoming get quite a bit done with a specialist organizations that may take longer but we may know at the end of two weeks. >> i'll - i will ask of you and the gentleman to coming out to a point you feel like i need
3:12 am
more time let us know beyond june 2nd. >> thank you commissioner moore. >> excuse me - i'd like to remind us next week a holiday no ability to influence if it there are changes to any of the documents they are to be in the department within a significant in the amount of we shouldn't forgot that has a realistic date for the people to talk. >> commissioner hillis. >> yes. i'm also supportive of the continuance a lot of the issues have sorry about that out there and on the table we'll have either resolution or know through is not resolution and make decisions at the commission i'm supportive it urges the parties to work with that goal of trying to resolve this in the next two weeks.
3:13 am
>> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items. >> sorry commissioner moore. >> i'd like department to lay out the timeline the decisions have to be made and the documents that need to be filed in the commission. package i was caught in agreeing to a continuance on a project only to realize that the clause of submittal was impossible to meet with a holiday in between or someone is out of town i want to be realistic. >> because itself calendar of required submittals is the holiday next thursday effects what we do. >> just so you know technique your another meeting not a holiday if there are contextual changes we'll make sure those get to you in advance
3:14 am
my sense from what i'm hearing i learned of this today it is probable not architectural issues if there are we'll gets to you next thursday. >> or the commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to then there is a motion that has been seconded to continue items as proposed commissioner antonini. >> commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu and commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to one commissioners that commissioners, that places you under your your exceptional or extraordinary one item to be route by the planning commission and commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless
3:15 am
a member of the commission, the public, or staff so requests removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item at this or a future hearing. item 3 van ness after a conditional use authorization i have no speaker cards. >> any public comment on one item on the exceptional or extraordinary not seeing any, public comment is closed. >> move to approve. >> second. >> thank you commissioners on that motion to approve commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places us under commission matters item 4 consideration of draft minutes for the may 5 joint hearing and a regular hearing any public comment on the draft minutes not seeing any, public comment is closed.
3:16 am
and anyone like to make a motion to draft minutes. >> thank you, commissioners commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and places us under item 5 commissioners questions or comments. >> go commissioner vice president richards. >> i just wanted to let the public know in your packet this week the 2014-2015 annual report anything you want to know about planning, building and historic preservation i urge to go online and see a copy of 3 thanks. >> commissioner antonini. >> also in the packet this week information on possible legislation proposed for
3:17 am
short-term rentals and i will assume that will come before us for further hearings. >> i was going to talk about during any public comment. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much new topic so my understanding we're moving forward on the joint hearing with the mta i've been talking about for two years i'm happy and start on a new topic talking with developers and asking them why are we paying the childcare fee rather than potentially providing oversee services on site and a lot of the time the answers is because no physical ability to have childcare facilities on a lot of the sites because of the rules around how much open space you have to have how much internal
3:18 am
exposure and other public uses, etc. i'd like to ask a request for a memo or even potential hearing, talking about the childcare facility and how the planning code and a are building code helps us or not getting this off the ground more childcare facilities in san francisco. >> okay. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to department matters director's announcements. >> thanks jonas good afternoon, commissioners one of the things we've learned over the years many of the requirements are in state law i'll be happy to separate what kinds of controls versus what the city controls. >> any sf maybe not seen a developer that has a clear understanding of all the
3:19 am
restrictions and great to have if in place. >> with respect to the short-term rentals legislation, of course, you spent a lot of time on this last year the proposed legislation is an amendment to the short-term rentals legislation which lives in the administrative code not not planning code so technically didn't require our hearing a short timeline not recommended a hearing because it covers many of the issues the commission discussed last year and the commission weighed no on it last year and many, in fact, all the substance of the legislation were issues you reviewed last year that was our thought we that we prepare the memo outlining the details but then the board that talk take up this pretty quickly in the next couple weeks and just so summarize to a legislation
3:20 am
quickly it would modify - hold one of the things that will do the commission discussed hold the platforms responsible for the outer register we discussed it last year it would also grant citation authority to the planning department for short-term rentals and provide for penalty and so forth those are issues that were discussed last year at the this commission are the thinking in speaking with the president and vice president we because that was part of administrative code it went back to the board that concludes my remarks. >> i'll assume because the election in 2015 was no a chartered amendment not require a vote of the public to make alternative transportation to the short-term rentals law was
3:21 am
in effect it can be done by the board. >> that legislation good evening pass last year. >> i know it didn't pass. >> but i'm saying that you know it wasn't chartered and not passed it goes to the voters. >> seismic. >> quick point of clarification when you say the citation authority is the department part the short-term rentals enforcement or a separate unit. >> the proposal will the office of short-term rentals but improve the enforcement capabilities. >> thank you. >> on review of past event of board of appeals and the historic preservation commission. >> good afternoon commissioners aaron starr, manager, legislative affairs. at that weeks land use they heard the landmark for the
3:22 am
alameda integer hospital located on the excelsior outer mission a landmark for the hpc voted to recommend it to the board on march 16 of this year it was part of the system of emergency hospitals that became known as with an of the most comprehensive in its time constructed in 1933 the alameda was the final piece not system and rendering in spanish is colonial both were designed by a master architect charles that oversee the schools and hospitals in the city a further note the internal are pained in 1934 if i noted person bernard who painted the library mural at coit tower and opening marine corp's by supervisor avalos several members spoke in support
3:23 am
and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the full board of supervisors. >> at the full board this week supervisor kim's ordinance that allows accessory massage in the north of math arranged district had its second reading and the appeal for 1066 market was continued there were two introductions of note the first was a note sponsored by supervisor peskin and the planning department to clarify the noirnl exempted from regulations if august 6th and increases the penalties for repeat violation of the advertising signs and shows the time for advertising violation will accrue and penalties that go unpaid the second ordinance this
3:24 am
sponsored by supervisor kim and really 1066 math with inclusionary housing requirements exempting certain floors in the calculation of grow floor and transfers the requirement and has land dedication at no cost that concludes my presentation. >> thank you commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i had a question consideration given to historical recognition of entry dirty harry was filmed there. >> what was the building. >> it was like alameda emergency there is a small emergency hospital on it is an none street. >> already a landmark.
3:25 am
>> it already is. >> okay. i think that thank you very much. >> and the board of appeals did meet two items of interest the first 88 arkansas you heard the land use and transportation on march third one of the components was a unit mix exception that provided the rental housing number of units are nestled bedrooms that don't many even though the current zoning administrator the appeal in in regards the appropriate standards for review up until last year the references was for the various finding the commission must make the same preliminary for part of code clean up and we actually - that was removed those standards don't apply that's how you received and filed. reviewed that we'll be bringing up this correction to put those finding and then related or
3:26 am
similar legislation that is schedule on june 16th so a lot of discussion about that at the hearing of the board unanimously upheld that was appropriate he didn't error in discussion on 66 third street a notice of violation penalty issued last year this was in relation to an action in 2014 that was a legalization proposal to have the conversion from warehouse to office the commission approved it and submitted the office allocation with the commission approval to the upper storehouses of the building using the appeal the appellant was used historically and plagues if 1997 been the same owner since 1962 and 1987 they stated these were the
3:27 am
buildings warehouses and grand to retail there was a special restriction and no permit inform establish the office use and a couple of years with a process to legalize the decision no appeal it was final we pursued the enforcement insuring our decision was perfect and last night the appellant agreed that were treated definitely and we went across the street that had been approved the board had questions why this was different from that the project i need some changes in our policies in terms of pdr and also concerns with offense allocation and doing resources in that important decision you approved that but a small captation in our approval
3:28 am
the board last night postponed until december 7th they didn't state the exact reason why part of the two-fold one to give the project sponsor time to address the violation with the uses and also to see what maybe in store for the property corridor central soma corridor rezoning i pointed out they're not likely to change still needs an office allocation make a permitted rather than a conditional needs to come back before you but we'll update you in december on that item thanks. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> just a couple of questions was a full board of appeals. >> we were down one commissioner. >> it would have been a tie.
3:29 am
>> yeah. there were a lot of possibilities but they choose 3 to one vote to continue it. >> and penalties au cutting-edge. >> no penalties have not accruing and will not accrue until after a final decision in december. >> okay. thank you. >> good afternoon tim frye here to share a few items in historic preservation commission hearing a fairly short hearing the day began with the architectural review committee a second living zone and installation across in the art asian museum and temporarily installation the commissioner was supportive of the design prepared by a nonprofit works with high school students and they are developing a design is
3:30 am
incorporates a chinese dragon with residential hotel from the asian art museum the second item the adrc provided the comment on revised pedestrian shelter for the brt in front of city hall as you recall the commission asked the mta to review and restudy a more streamlined canopy and pedestrian structure within the medium to better reflective the architectural servicing and provided a - believes they meet the goals and direction that the full commission gave the mta that item will then be back before the full commission in
3:31 am
june. >> then the it commenced with a short calendar one certificate of appropriatesness on saint lutheran church and the commission reviewed the academy of arts existing technical memorandum i'll be reviewing the commission was supportive of the departments work to date and throughout the schedule the outstanding items we'll be bringing to the hpc was sufficient and particular that was related to the 10 sites that require certificate of appropriateness under article 10 and 11 that concludes my remarks unless you have questions. >> commissioners, that places you under your under general public comment not to exceed 1 minutes
3:32 am
at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda items. with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when reached in the meeting. each member of the public may address the commission up to three minutes. there are no speaker cards. >> >> any general public comment? okay not seeing any, general public comment is closed. >> commissioners that places us under our regular calendar affordable housing in verse did care a planning code amendment. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is monique mohan here to recognized the approval for the change of affordable housing for units in the rezoned divisadero and coner
3:33 am
johnston when we arrives will provide comments so encouraging in first amendment district or ncd requires any housing project with 10 or more units is subject to the ordinance it recognizes that any properties proposal on divisadero and be nct that have potential due to the rezoning from the project sponsor choose to pay the fee they'll pay equivalent of 25 percent of unit in the project of affordable units from the project sponsor choose the onsite housing 23 of the units constructed on the project as affordable housing and from the project sponsor wishes to provide unit on offsite in the principle project
3:34 am
they shall construct 25 percent of all the units subject to the requirement of 3 or 4, 4 and 5 the amendment the higher rates from the charter will become effective there are 5 recommends that the department is proposing and reflected in the updated resolution the department staff thanks the departments for brought to your attention and the second recommendation to make sure that the affordable housing fees generated through the development of the december verse nct shall be deposited and the same criteria the proposed ordinance names the following criteria one to increase the supply of the affordable in divisadero and
3:35 am
two increase the supply of affordable housing within one mile the divisadero and fillmore street nct and 3 to increase the housing inform qualified housing in the city to date all affordable housing generated are deposited into the affordable housing fund this allows the city to maximize the funded to increase the affordable housing supply from the funds are restricted to the zoning district it - furthermore this is sets a precedent and lowers the housing for the affordable funds through the department asked to amend it for the use of funds for the inclusionary program recommendation two to create consistency with the affordable housing fees the department recommends that
3:36 am
the ordinance mirrors the trailing legislation for the inclusionary housing fee regarding the onsite and offsite inside the project that means that the project under 24 units are under the rate of 12 and more subject to the trailing legislation the department is recommending the change because as currently written the fees are lower pan than the inclusionary rates in prop c june recommendation 3 - >> the proposed trailing legislation for the charter amendment voted on in june lowers the rates in the per diem depending on when a project is submitted and environmental evaluation or e e the rates are talked about in the slide none are dependent this ordinance is considered
3:37 am
didn't grandfather any project therefore, in the case of a project that e has filed triggers a lower inclusionary that becomes effective this june for the divisadero and fillmore side in the past the department has recommended the grairthd for the projects in the pipeline the projects in the divisadero and fillmore nct are benefiting for the development given that the department recommends that the projects are 50 percent increase residential density to the old nct zoning should be exempt from the trailing legislation in other words, projects that have 50 are subject to the onsite and offsite requirement if a project with an e application submitted has a promoted residential nct
3:38 am
not a 50 percent increase in the old zoning the grandfather in the trailing legislation will provide two projects along the divisadero corridor they've submitted their e e application and more have an increase in the density subject to the higher inclusionary rates the fourth represents is clarifying the determination of residential potential the current charter language the project through a special use district or another legislation adopted on november 6, 2012, receives a 20 percent great or two a 50 percent or greater increase in residential over prior zoning district to increase the affordable housing requirements the charter language proposed own the june ballot not includes this
3:39 am
language and allows the supervisors to change it without a change to the charter given the language in the charter will change it references the language and in the old divisadero and fillmore commercial district will no longer need to do do calculations the final recommendation is to include a subdivision that describes the fees for the nct and nickel and dime u fillmore it creates a new code section in the affordable housing fee given this fee a recommendation is this fee follows the same affordable housing program and a new section rather than a new code section and directs the public to one code that concludes my presentation. and the department asks the planning commission recommend
3:40 am
the approval and the attached to that effect. >> and connor is here. >> i was here all along lurking with any friend alex. >> (laughter). thank you. i want to provide sorry conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. and provide a little bit of background at the risk of what many said pursue in november of 2012 the voters passed prop c that set the inclusionary in the charter and 12 percent onsite and offsite and return to prop c in a second in the fall of 2014 supervisor breed passed the nct along fillmore between bush and mcallister and the divisadero continue hate and 0'farrell both pieces of legislation were
3:41 am
supported and the board of supervisors passed p them unanimously and supervisor breed passed the legislation rising the mcd to make them nct matt haney that density will be controlled by height and unbelievable and open space and closer requirements instead of a ratio in terms of more housing units will be allowed and the planning commission addressed board of supervisors supported those unanimously and here's where 2012 prop c comes into play with the nct there are a dozen helps to create for affordable units oversee are a percentage of the total units you get more affordable housing unit and cheaper market-rate unit without height and bulk for buildings and in that respective nct are a great first step but were supervisor breed want to
3:42 am
increase the affordable units and unfortunately under prop c that was not credit card possible and certain exception in prop c in the charter the inclusionary can be increased one, if there is a development agreement involved in terms of a redevelopment project or an ifd you're using property tax increment and 40 are more acres none of nct are 40 acres a project that gets public finance can have a exception to prop c and the project with a density bonus or if the city as proprietary interest no way to include to increase the inclusionary requirement under the chapter, however, there is one other previously never used provision that says in other legislation or a special use district adopted after prop c with a greater under
3:43 am
consideration in the residential flows e glows e gross floor or greater in the residential prior zoning you can increase the inclusionary requirement after a lot of consultation with the planning department and your director and the city attorney's office as well as in confess of 2015 supervisor breed introduced legislation using that prop c exception to create the highest inclusionary housing requirement in san francisco history for projects with nct areas that exercise the decontrol provisions to get a 50 percent or greater increase in units and using the outgoing 2007 nexus study by kaiser she set the fee at the highest achieveable 25 percent and the - 25 for a fee
3:44 am
or offsite and the onsite rates 23 percent in order to have the onsite development within the neighborhoods now with after all that a prologue twice the board of supervisors then introduced a charter amendment in december that largely undoes prop c this is confusing this is also called prop c 2016 prop c will separate trailing legislation the new rates are 33 fee for offsite and 25 for onsite housing the trailing legislation provide grandfather exemption for projects in the pipeline and it requires a feasibility study to have the rates going forward so as you imagine that is a bit of a moving target not knowing from the inclusionary rates will be cancun from the
3:45 am
new prop c passes and the forthcoming be faeshldz this is not the finished product we have working closely is planning department staff to try to simplify and anticipate the outcomes i want to particularly thank monique mohan and aaron starr for those two obviously developments because she agrees with the policy direction supervisor breed would like the divisadero and fillmore to anywhere the citywide inclusionary levels consistent of consistent with the fees that staff recommendation number one supervisor breed also wants pipeline taking advantage of a 50 percent under the nct legislation to remain subject to the new inclusionary rates and not receive a grandfathering exception those projects have
3:46 am
the option of not increasing their density and receiving the grandfathering rate that is staff recommendation number two staff recommends adding the old charter language for reference we agree indicting to tie in number four and staffs memorandum is area marking for the respective nct hears eras that was a legacy for a market difference between the nct and now appropriate to direct those 0 the stuart housing funds as all other inclusionary housing fees and some commenters may suggest the inclusionary were pipeline within the nct should also be influenced by the feasibility analysis supervisor
3:47 am
breed is receptive and other provisions as the prop c on june 7th as the inclusionary ordinance is finalize before those ordinances go to the wlufks with that said, i'm happy to recommend and thank you for your time and consideration >> opening up for public comment of which i have several speaker cards (calling names). >> good afternoon commissioners affordable december vera learned of this ordinance yesterday and i'm handing out this divisadero
3:48 am
plan we oppose this no community involvement great work with the planning department but the community who is most effected by this proposed legislation has not had a chance to weigh in, and, secondly, the plan does not in must way reflect the divisadero we've handed to you many times i'll leave to other additional points about why this be rapidly changed. >> additional speakers on this item. >> good afternoon commissioner dean with the affordable we need to stop the give away to
3:49 am
developers along divisadero without consulting the community we're in round two so some of what that mr. johnson talked about is accurate and some not after the zion e zoning complained about the up zoning allowing doubling and tripling of the zones without requiring a percentage not some mystery someone can increase the affordable housing requirement when upcoming zoning well known to us and why it took so many months to get the movement from the supervisors office make no mistake as currently drafted this would yet again for future projects would say there is no additional affordability along divisadero prop c passes that will be the standard so the
3:50 am
same standard that applies to any other projects will be a future divisadero despite the developers get and tripling of income we want to make sure that any additional affordable requirements that are part of this ordinances are in addition to whatever the baseline whether 12 percent going forward are the new percentage under prop c developers get a massive increase along divisadero we must insist on the maximum along with the inclusionary and the second point the fees the relationship between the in lui fee and the onsite requirements need to be adjusted so there is an incentive to provide onsite housing that is part of our community plan and as well as supervisor breed
3:51 am
office stated an intention to have antidepressant but 23 percent of onsite affordable or 25 percent fee out we know that will create everyone will fee out with no additional affordable units and finally with respect to existing projects we agree that the increases need to apply i will suggest that the matter be put over a few weeks as testing noted no communication with the community whatsoever about the change to divisadero thank you. >> thank you. >> calvin hate ashbury council a member of the affordable divisadero we support the position of affordable divisadero that is offered to i want to make a comment both
3:52 am
connors statement. >> your staffs rotator that is outstanding we can go through a yearlong discussion this commission with that commission playing and very involved role the question of density bonus your staff was not informed when applied to this particular case the notion that you can't get an additional affordable housing requirement by granting a large density, of course, runs into the face of the assumes of the density bonus program proposed and advised by your own staff so clearly i mean prop c was clear pointed out to supervisor breed no increasing of affordable housing fee the redundant staff
3:53 am
and supervisor breed so do this in the initial case was unfortunate to continue to ignore the request of the community for not only affordable a policy adopted by this commission your staff by this department but to then ignore all the data in information that you generated in the hearings that you had on density bonuses about the net of having not only affordability enhanced affordability but affordability able to urban design afforded at the neighborhood level not talked about at all in this legislation any recognition that the first name is one of the lowest income neighborhoods in san francisco. >> that the average according to the american u.s. consensus the medium income of households in
3:54 am
the western edition african-american household is $29,000 a year none of which can support any of the go affordability levels projected in sxhoodz legislation that is critically important this commission holds this legislation informs your staff about the exclusions in reference to the affordable housing bonus program and include those hearing those conclusions into our recommendation for regarding this legislation thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment mr. cowen. >> good afternoon, commissioners peter cohen, san francisco council of community housing organizations. staff has picked up on a couple of things we flagged when we reviewed the ordinance just 0 reiterate the 22, 25 percent i
3:55 am
have the recommends to prop c you have to understand going forward there is an intensely relationship between the percentage for onsite and the fee out because you have to have a level of parities you're looking at a developers choice we have a fee too low methodology we have an built in incentive but make the percentages closer your geeze guaranteed the out so the original none consented other site i'm clear that is an error on my part or the staff in your staff report an option for fee i see the language in in there also that was out i'd like to, corrected not sure why there is language to give a developer a choice to defer until after
3:56 am
construction first section 41 that expired put in there 4 years ago it you look at the expired part of code that's just an oversight take it out no fee option on that condition. >> and thirdly, i think the fundamental issue on the corridors that started before prop c i will have to say that we brought to staff attention in june 2015 the memo as called existed this was a memo from may 2013 that made clear under the circumstances for fillmore and divisadero staff missed that so this is now a catch up on what could have been done openly
3:57 am
on that nct up zoning but leveling with prop c i don't disagreeing disagree are you to figure out how to catch the up zoning i don't know what the amount the eastern neighborhoods you adopted a higher inclusionary based on the up scoping so the superior court inclusionary two or 3 tiers to recall brat how you catch up that in divisadero on top of the baseline that is reasonable that was the original pretty much purchase of this legislation and shouldn't be forgotten thank you. >> next council of commenters. >> hi commissioner my name is david with jen's sews the developer of this project
3:58 am
presently a car wash with transient and retail and bicycle lanes we want to do housing over structures and try to doing everything we can with design and working with folks all right. met with local groups and plan to continue doing so and be as assessable as possible people have a lot of sight and opinions it is complicated doing a project in the city but somehow we get there at the end one point of consensus is people seem to agree you have a gap within 9 wonderful pedestrian and retail corridor and it that would be great to fill that in how we do that is the question here one of the more creative ideas
3:59 am
has been addressed i don't have an opinion but a memo type of approach where that you want if you want to have this much affordability you know this has complications and i think the planning commission relatively to this site removed the density limits but the square footage stays owe same we don't build for square footage but divide that into smaller units makes that more affordable on the market-rate and provides nor bmr units any request for the commission is simple a lot of stuff to glow treat us fairly as had is happening with the whole prop c there is a lot of uncertainties but people feel you're looking at feasibility
4:00 am
study to make policies seeps a as opposed to arrest terror numbers and grandfathering is important because people that spent a lot of money to make a good project happen and file their e e a shouldn't be discriminates we want to be team players and doing everything we can for the city and look forward to working with you thanks. >> good afternoon, commissioners steve for marcille on behalf of the jgenesis - didn't make changes to the height wasn't the requirements so the square footage of projects stays owe same we don't
4:01 am
disagree the inclusionary housing application this be reexamined as peter mentioned the eastern neighborhoods could be a new district to increase the inclusionary requirement to 12 percent to 14 plus percent for a health limit increase in eastern neighborhoods there was a 2, 3, 4 increase in on the district for nct district so a couple of comments first, the organization is not in sync that recognizes the projects in the pipeline with the land decisions bansed the refrigerates and not fair to dramatically increase those requirements rather the projects are phased in pipeline projects are phased into the trailing legislation we've recommended a similar phase in with the pipeline projects second the trailing legislation
4:02 am
is a detailed procedure for the city to do a feasibility analysis and the board of supervisors will use the analysis to set the requirements going forward unfortunately, this ordinance didn't acknowledge the feasibility analysis and instead on page 6 of the origin no matter what the results those rates can't go down under johnson said they'll look at that issue and try to merge this ordinance with the feasibility analysis this is encourage and recommend they do that and unfortunately, the staff report didn't talk about feasibility 23 percent of zero was affordable units and not feasible to build so like i said the problem none has performed the faeblth
4:03 am
analysis two 23 or 25 or thirty or 33 offsite until that naturals is completed pretty much to set me rates in stone we're asking you recommend this is continued until after the feasibility study in july or state the inclusionary levels in 2, 3, 4 ordinance be revisited after completion of the feasibility analysis and the bottom line for david's project the feasibility rates are not set correctly the car wash will remain and not one hundred and 50 units of new housing or any new units thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i'm jim i'm a part of 4 hundred divisadero team advising on planning matters this commission went through a detailed process on the prop c
4:04 am
trailing legislation making sure that was fair and equitable and treats light properties light the legislation before you singles out the nct and locks in the percentage before the feasibility study is done and not include the same grandfather provisions as the rest of the city those areas and projects should be treated like every else in the city the nct zoning doesn't increase allowable square footage not height or bulk it mark farrell allows for smaller units those units therefore will be more affordable so the talk of magnificent up zoning is disingenuous at best i ask the commission recommend 209d supervisors this legislation regarding the nct area be amend to make the inclusionary
4:05 am
requirements justifiable bantsdz the feasibility study and sounds like supervisor breed is agreeable to that but i ask you recommend to the commission that it has the same grandfathering provisions as the trailing legislation from the reason that didn't have those same grandfathering regulations that the claim it is a massive up zoning that's simply not the facts only good planning and fair and equitable thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners tim colen/san francisco housing action coalition. i guess i'll try to key keep to short and reiterate what was said we strongly support the creation of ncts that's good direction to take the city to
4:06 am
moving artificial pavshg and a forward thinking planning with that said we're concerned about the 23 and 25 repeatedly on all sides not sure the methodology to establish that and we think that that would benefit a lot either make if intern subject to the feasibility study dpaips we have a patchwork of neighborhoods with different levels bring this under the process that are laborly talked about in under prop c get an economic feasibility study and apply this we commend supervisor breed for considerably that the grandfathering that was a protracted battle but learning scheduled in the interest of fairness not to change the rules
4:07 am
in the middle the stream that is wildly unfair and creates uncertainty for development there have was are rule rule set up with timelines this is entirely appropriate the nct are great models to be represent indicated in parts around the city that makes sure that you do it right with the inclusionary is set fairly and the rules are transparent so it moves forward quickly thanks. >> is there any additional public comment on this item. >> okay not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> yeah. i think we need to look at this closely because you're changing a law midstream something i don't like to the projects are brought forward and one set of laws whether or not
4:08 am
there should have been more affordability with the height and bulk in determining the density you know that was was the case when the projects were planned and designed so we have a situation in eastern neighborhoods that does more carefully what they were passed we had a series of tiers of increased affordability and relationship to how much we felt was given in various parts of eastern neighborhoods so we can range from 14 up to 18 we believe in something instances and look at that more graduated situation and the same thing with the grandfathering situation i mean, i think it looks like the staff recommendation to grandfathering is built in up to the 50 percent upgrade in which case no grandfathering all-or-nothing
4:09 am
type of situation again i don't think that is the way to do if it you're going to allow the grandfathering blow 50 percent of slightly increases to citywide then probably for a large project you'll have more but not a huge amount more there is a difference between 48 and 50 percent is not much we have to look at had that carefully and also the state law we're talking about the increased affordability the state law is a court case latino made the point that even if the sponsor felt the recite amount of affordable housing their entitled to a upgrade of market-rate in terms
4:10 am
of height and bulk so eventually there will be some litigation in regards to this i'm sure that has been going on for a long time in the state law and has to be part of whatever the city is considering and finally, the nexus study is essential that he went ahead with the proposal for prop c without the nexus study only thinking about revising it after the nexus study is you know after the election was vote on what we might have in the future rather than you know vote now and we may change it in the future based on what we'll learn with our study first and found out who what is reasonable and then vote anyway i would like to see if there's a possibility to continue this lo although i think there is a
4:11 am
timeframe the legislation we have a certain amount of time maybe the gentleman can comment on that. >> is there a timeframe during which our comments our position can be made and conner johnson legislative aide to board president london breed. this is not relevant join or i don't think i'm an attorney but not talking about the height and bulk but the removal bans parcel square footage with respect to the timeline we're introduced an extension for this to be heard later because the conversations around prop c and the trailing legislation was taking place it needs to ultimately what the legislation with the staff recommendation does is toy this to legislation that you've already seen and approved which is the trailing legislation and the structure processes.
4:12 am
>> thank you very much in regards to that our position on going to be a recommendation to the supervisors to ultimately whatever we decide we'll have input but our decision is not the final say on this. >> commissioner hillis. >> so i agree with most of commenters this needs more time and analysis i think what i've hearing the problem is prop c is complicated we started discussing this and heard in the neighborhood in the supervisors office when the nct was passed we realized there was some value jade by making that change you know whether it enormous or not enormous is yet in my mind to be determined certainly we granted additional density and not provide additional height but we can get
4:13 am
to this kind of number or that analysis fairly quickly done in the eastern neighborhoods as someone mentioned we increased you know we took that kind of value difference and came up with fees for affordable housing increases that i think were a little bit more based on the faefldz that we can do so i'm feeling like we're kind of mixing apples and oranges in the nct and what that did to some of the projects i mean, i know about the rad yarlt shop project we saw an increase in the unit and in the square footage but i think that is what we need to look at the value increased in the land that was what we did in what we're looking at in western soma what that delicate as a
4:14 am
inclusions regardless of prop c and you know prop c is happen in a month whether that is approved or not layer in the complexity that is let's do that analysis with the nct differential and see that that bears and layer in the prop cs work or the outcomes of that after in fact, known but to me we are taking the grandfathering from prop c in the inclusionary from prop c and saying if prop c passes the differences we want because of the nct we need to study actually, we need to study that effects the nct now it is fairly simple given the projects in the pipeline i think we can do that with the neighborhood and the project sponsor but that would be - i don't feel like that's ready for us to make a
4:15 am
recommendation at this point. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> so i'll give an analogy this is a midair we know it can land you, however, we'll make the choice to repair it and distracts us to make that land they'd the danger here i completely agree with what commissioner bobby wilson said do our work up front and wait to see what happens with prop c when we have the density bonus this commission has 3 addendums we have a value and capture analysis i think i heard people on both sides of the political spectrum that is needed and wanted to understand the conditions that is involved in the buildings that are historical and also the last one is community involvement the key to any success of a plan is
4:16 am
really letting the community be involved in understanding what is happening so mr. johnson you may differ i don't think i heard a lot of community involvement here i don't think this is ready for us to give a recommendation on i will support a continuance and support a continuance we made on other issues until after the elect oversees. >> commissioner wu. >> i'm supportive for me not the density bonus but the eastern neighborhoods maybe there is a way to come up with tiers that are related to the change in value essentially and then to add whatever happens for policy later but the first determine the tiers and what the defensive from the nct to mcd
4:17 am
ncd i think there is referrals in the language that should be taken out and the grandfathering is this is only change if ncd to nct in 2015; right? not that prior to summer of 2011 we were operating in a different world and switched to this world just recently and now sort of correct the mistakes. >> would you mind, if i have malcolm heinicke i didn't clarify this. >> referral issue. >> yes. in our code sections 4 one 5 language that talks about the option by the building code
4:18 am
that building code section is - and if you read that code section a sunset date for the referral you'll go to the building code and see that sundown in july of 2013 we kept the planning code language that the sunseted in case we only need to change the building code but no one can defer their fees it is referred in the planning code and sundosetteunsetted. >> when you heard the childcare impact fee is in all the fees that. >> i hear what you're saying on a choice. >> i'll defer to the project
4:19 am
sponsor on that. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you yeah. thank you imperative for asking the question about difrlz i'll error on the side not concluded those we've seen time after time that things get confused if there's a sunset in the building code i suggest we keep that there and jump that bridge when we come to it i also agree we're for various reasons this legislation seems great it allows us to go back and take advantage of the shift if ncd to nct but i agree with other commenters we could have provided more information to for about the effects so again sort of echoing sxhifgz we looked at the affordable housing bonus program legislation there was a
4:20 am
lot of work the staff did to model the various model projects to show what we will get by adding on the state density bonus on top of the existing zoning and that was super helpful in terms of talking about the specification of that legislation i feel that is missing here however, and i just want to mention one commenter i have a couple of questions about the cross over to the legislation and prop c and other legislation but i will say let me ask that question first. >> the first one is we had a commenter say you know about talking about affordability in those particular neighborhoods i wanted to sort of make sure ask questions that the reason we passed the neighborhood legislation was applied to projects built in this area so there is a
4:21 am
little bit of this protection there and have later discussions whether or not city the medium ami politics to that neighborhood applies here. >> yes. the neighborhood preference legislation will apply to any project that has bmr or affordable you know. >> and he then i think a large question so my understanding from our discussion at at commission level of the 2015 prop c is that one potential outcome of that ordinance passing and then the trailing legislation or that ballot measure and the trailing legislation that there still the ability to have neighborhood level - so new prop c establishes changes to the
4:22 am
taking inclusionary housing program out of the city charter and establishes a new affordable level my understanding even beyond the trailing legislation the charter allows there to be different legislation in the future that can vary the blow the level of thcyber city. >> mirena burns it is my understanding you're correct it takes it out of the charter and establishes interim controls that are in place until the board passes comprehensive legislation to establish the levels that's what you're talking about as the trailing legislation because that is done by ordinance the board, of course, the board can amend that without a ballot initiative. >> okay. so my attention not to get into a prop c discussion
4:23 am
i say that i can be supportive of having an didn't language brown-bag the levels of staesht in 2, 3, 4 large project authorization legislation and what is proposed in the prop c ballot, however, i guess if we were to continue this this didn't necessarily mean the level of affordability for this legislation has to match prop c in the trailing legislation of prop c because i think that is the good precedent not start right off the bat but the nexus study study with the feasibility analysis there is a good reason to have different levels for those districts i think i can be supportive of that and i will be supportive of having a linkage
4:24 am
to the feasibility analysis called for by the prop c legislation. >> thanks. >> commissioner moore. >> just briefly i'm generally in support of continuance the support the majority of comments made by the other commissions on the deferral option not keeping it in place it expires deferrals are considered under the constraint and separate discussion not on on and off in terms of preference the other issue i'm concerned about is to see just from the timing for the new view the whole june vote goes on step one in baseline and future tiered increases depending upon the increase and density is an independent discussion how and how it didn't apply is a
4:25 am
separate discussion any increase in density requires a consideration to what and that's all i'll say at this moment. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> i move to continue that to june 23rd. >> second. >> second. >> commissioners i'll be out of town on june 23rd. >> 30th. >> 30th. >> still won't be here. >> however, a 90. >> 90 day? sorry >> i can take care of that. >> continue until john 30th. >> why not june 23rd. >> the calendar. >> okay. okay. >> as the seconder had a question we also are advising that prior to that time the
4:26 am
feasibility study be flatten and the community meetings staff recommendations if it that's okay with the maker the motion a little bit more something more concrete to base. >> commissioner we don't have the capacity in 4 weeks feasibility study but 4 weeks we'll not have the result of the study. >> i think that is more of an analysis between the in depth to the ncd not a full feasible analysis. >> that's my understanding what the increase capacity will allow. >> yes. that's probably more that's my second on >> imperative. >> okay very good commissioners there is a motion that has been seconded - >> sorry commissioner that was
4:27 am
june 30th or 23 puts us before the larger feasibility analysis reading. >> sorry that's correct when we considered this on the 30th that we would maybe make a suggestion you look at the feasible tie the feasibility analysis to the future legislation i don't know if that's before you. >> i thought we were asking for the difference between the ncd and the nct and undercover officer is referring to the prop c. >> i mean that hopefully, the group will come under that later. >> later we'll still hear this on june 30th. >> we'll know what will happen with prop c at this time does that make sense. >> someone mentioned the eastern neighborhoods and where we did that where we did that change there
4:28 am
were kind of a tier rolled to prop c this is more an analogy to that what we're doing with prop c. >> commissioners, if there's nothing further, we'll move on to a motion there is a motion that has been seconded to continue to june 30th to allow time for community meetings and feasibility study between the nct and ncd commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner johnson commissioner moore commissioner wu commissioner vice president richards and commissioner president fong so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero and commissioners that places us only items 9 ab for the academy of art informational update and case for a memorandum
4:29 am
of understanding for any person's that in the audience for items 10 ab for 2000 to 70 bryant street a conditional use authorization and large project authorization those matters have been continued until june 2nd. >> good afternoon, commissioners tina with the planning department as the follow-up to the hearing regarding the march 17 provide a few updates enforcement and purchase and policy recommendations after going over the department's policy recommendations that provide the supporting of the approval i'll go over the project not supportive regarding enforcement as of april 14th the zoning administrator issued a notice of
4:30 am
violation and penalty to the academy of art university for 22 properties in violation of planning code they've been by osteo the board of appeals their schedule for hearing on june 22, 2016, this is included with the comments with the eir with the memorandum of understanding so failure to publish those by july 1st will result from penalties of $5,500 for all properties in addition to the potential penalties they are au kruger on townsend with $4,500 and au had the penalties of 3 nine hundred plus on taylor student all au have paid did
4:31 am
outstanding fee violations the feedback from the commission with the additional analysis with the reorganized properties into categories we plan to group those by consideration of categories over the course of 6 to 7 hearings since properties of the same shares quality issues and concerns staff set the projects under one publication while preparing separate - to the loss of housing will be grouped under one application followed by separate motioned for each property westbound the conditional use authorization or planning code amendment some of the 15 properties not requiring action only b the historic preservation maybe brought before the planning department for the staff to off the conditions of approval with the historic preservation commission review or case by case basis
4:32 am
regarding 9 properties of aris code amendments two planning code amendments have been submitted by osteo allow the conversion of student housing with the residential use for au sites and the second amendment to extend the grace period in the valley district and staff proposed the ordinance along with the policy recommendations to the observance by au at the initiation with the eir certification will - as well as the ordinance prepared by the planning department the planning commission could choice to initiate one or two proposals shall we get the -
4:33 am
>> there we go. >> the timeline you see before you is the identical to the one and your case packets the final comments dir will be published before july the staff will bring the initiation and the application of the final eir after the august and september the adaptation of planning code for the staff - for the commission considerations and staff intends to publish those in the following year. >> as mentioned staff has groups a properties according other categories regarding the student housing r student housing the department is unsupportive of the citywide goal to protect the affordability of
4:34 am
horticulturalist and require the institutions to meet the housing demand and we would be inclined in support of housing services and located on the site in the rc with low density building if left to the free market the history resources the structure will result in a single-family dwelling or 3 family dwelling unit the staff wants the student housing be occupied regarding accident conversion of industrial to institution staff is unsupportive of conversion with the pdr space and supports the case the conversion of the industrial use in nature regarding the retail to institutional the department is unsupportive of these goals for active ground floor uses we
4:35 am
support the institutional uses maintenance the public assessable active use and situated on the city rather than the city the conversion of office uses the department is inclined to not support those were the proposed use is ink345sh8. >> excuse me for one second could you slow down look at you're reading kind of fast. >> thank you, no problem. >> regarding the conversion of retail used to institutional uses the department is unsupportive of conversion that detract or take away from the - and supportive of - for office uses we'll be supportive of office space that are incompatible with the neighborhood context or located away from the arising the shuttles over extended we'll
4:36 am
support of conversions with the office space in nature as much as the administrative headquarters and appropriate for the section site regarding the last 3 policy staff is supportive of the conversion of tourist hotels and student housing or religion uses onsite and sites with no changes of use staff is support au has a higher than supportable use or have a used a building in the manner of a neighborhood context should those change in matter the staff is inclined to recommend a change with the consideration action by the planning commission in summary the staff will support of 24 properties
4:37 am
and unsupportive of 11 staff was not rented a recommendation for two of the properties under review. >> in the interest of time only properties recommended disapproval will be highlighted recommendations are preliminary bans the missions found a recommendation are subject to change in time of new information it is identical to the one in the packets the following slides will have colored blue is not permitted by planning code or reference those with the conditional use authorization yellow those requiring the historic preservation commission review and green only requiring the building permits and the requirement is the highest required so it planning code amendment can is are preservation and building permit
4:38 am
this map shows the snapshot of the departments represents on all au sites i sites sites in green the defendant is support and red is not recommend approval and black are the properties where staff recommends is taken stoushz a snapshot staff recommendations powerful think that sites 4 sites distracts the affordability of the city's housing stock and the institutions to meet the dances they generate with the housing so to legalize the following 4 properties each require a planning code amendment to allow
4:39 am
group housing i'm sorry each the 4 properties require the proved hours of the property and conditional use authorization to allow the giving up and the rc to the building permit applications. >> 1080 bush was illegally a property containing 42 units and residential hotels this is converted to student housing and first located in an rc-4 with a nob hill neighborhood 1143 bush was a property containing with dwelling units - was legally a property with one dwelling unit and 14 residential hotels and now student housing student housing it is located in
4:40 am
the rc-4 at bureaucrat and leavenworth in the neighborhood pine what as residential hotel now has student housing and it is a historic in the rc-4 zoning e zoning district in the nob hill. >> and finally sutter street was tourist and residential hotel containing 39 tourist rooms and residential hotels again, the building is now student housing it is a historic resource located in the neighborhood and all of the properties will require planning code amendments conditional use authorization and preservation and building permits moving to industrial sites as you can see from the map staff is inclined to recommend one
4:41 am
site and not a recommendation on two. >> the property as 2225 jerold was previously used as an desperately chair and sited in the eir as storage and accessoriesy office because of the expresses the views as recreational and storage the department is inclined to be unsupportive, however, the academy has submitted a revised application for a fault that is in the pdr zoning district and the department is open to supporting the clvm to section 210 would be required the next two properties on 466 townsend are industrial uses and containing industrial art spaces both property in the western
4:42 am
soma and the office space is industrial uses staff is some supportive of those code compliant in nature, however, came to light in stricken out uses are located onsite and staff is getting information on the properties for both of the properties an intern has an imposed on the conversion of pdrs uses with the conversion of industrial it is not allowed until their lift it expires if permanent controls permit the pdr uses a planning code amendment will be required. >> for the properties converting office to snuggle uses staff is inclined to recommend approval of 4 of the 7 sites recommend the approval of the unauthorized conversion
4:43 am
because of the dense from au central core. >> for 601 brandon located in the valley district not structural uses a grandfathering provision was in the zoning district allowing it to be legalized in 3 years it expired this year human resources to legalize that will be required au submitted an amendment extending the legalization grace period from 36 to 48 months the staff has ordinances before the consideration for the property as well as the residential conversions the next property on seven hundred montgomery in light jackson squad car to legalize the conditional use authorization and again, we're generally in support of this
4:44 am
away from the central core and it's capability with the overall district federal street in the mou zoning district the project requires a presently a building permit and under normal circumstances will not require planning commission action again loekd away from the central corridor. >> stockton is located in b two within the waterfront special use district and the office requires a building permit staff is inclined to recommend approval the final land use will going over the institutional use staff is inclined to be unsupportive of those that provide active use in commercial districts. >> taylor is located in the
4:45 am
north beach nct within the special use district and requires a conditional use authorization and to reestablish parking on the second story and the preservation permits will be required and last but not least is 2801 leavenworth agree historic resource in the special use district with the preservation review and the brimentd applications staff requires a ground floor active use and a lot of information for the time before this preservation as indicated staff wants feedback on staffs policy recommendations processing approaches and preliminary recommendations that concludes my presentation. and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you, very much. opening up for public comment >> could - and commissioner president fong
4:46 am
we'll continue with the technical memorandum on both items. >> is that going to pull up good afternoon commissioner president fong and members of the board i'll chelsea planning
4:47 am
department staff a coordinator for the academy of arts exist g existing. >> also joining me is rick senior environmental planner and transportation planner and request also shelly who will be providing you a synopsis of yesterday historic preservation commission on the espn members are present rae providing with you a brief presentation following this presentation the item before you is public review and comment on the au draft espn it is published open may 2016 and the thirty day review closes on june 3rd due to the fact the projects are evaluated under ceqa from the existing conditions at the time of the publication of the nop
4:48 am
past actions eve they occurred one way or the other without objecting the permits are existing companies. >> conditions it provides the h of those past actions au draft complains the environmental impact of non-permitted work of 40 au properties and recommend conditions of approval to remedy those impacts as a reminder 6 sites were evaluated in the draft eir out of the 34 exist sites 28 riders discretionary and 4 changes of use and physical work prompted without the benefit of permits and combines the 34 existing sites as well as the individual environmental effect of 28 seats for the discretionary he
4:49 am
approval it's different in that the recommended conditions of approval will not be a requirement unless the planning commission chooses to adopt those conditional use the permits or any other approval it has a transportation and management for all the properties and future opted out properties the discussion of each existing sites will be appropriated to the commission in subsequent staff reports in entitlement application examples of the proposed conditions of approval include typical historic preservation conditions of approval things removal of legitimate the replacement of secretary of interior standard complaints and removal or placement of awnings
4:50 am
removal of illegally installed vinyl windows and approving security gates and grills. >> typical transportation to demand management conditions of approval include removing you think use shuttle bus zones and relocation for biennial parking to admonishment the pedestrian around fences and onto the bus shuttle areas and relocating all flag stops that are stops where doushlg double parking is occurring. >> staff is recommending focus their review on consistency of au site description, the
4:51 am
appropriateness of those conditions of approval, and accuracy of the environmental impact analysis for the exit sites and the draft transportation management plan i'd like to remind the speakers this is not a hearing to consider the approving or disapproving the approvals will follow your comments should be confined to the accuracy and adequacy of the analysis in the draft i'd like to request that speakers speak slowly and clearly the court reporter can create an accurate transcript and folks estate our name clear informing for those interested in writing or by mail or e-mail submit your comments to the
4:52 am
environmental review officer by 55 m june 3rd and remind the commission we'll be returning in july for the consideration of finally eir and the final espn from the final eir is considered. >> that concludes my presentation. unless the commissioners have questions i'd like shelly to summarize the historic preservation commission meeting yesterday on espn. >> hello commissioners shelly from the preservation staff of the planning department mile comments are brief as you've heard made comments and generally unanimous argument on
4:53 am
agreements and commissioner johnson the sutter street could be counterfeited by researching that and commissioner hasz asked the pertaining to keep up the legalization the project site and that concluded their comments i'd like to note that 10 the project sites before the historic preservation commission for various legalization approval for either certificate of appropriateness or permits to all and commissioner hyland was absent and i'm available for any questions. >> director rahaim. >> thank you, commissioners to wrap up the staffs presentation first of all, thank you to staff to put together that chelsea this is the first time we've done a report like this is a eir
4:54 am
not an - and tina for putting together this great staff report it lays out the staff's recommendation on that point and shelly on the preempt this is a lot of projects coming at everyone at once i appreciate that with respect to tinas presentation i want to summarize what we are asking for feedback on pages three and four of the report our thoughts on the policy recommendations and why we recommended what we have on the various projects so there is a series of policy directions and recommendations or policy basis for your recommends that's one thing i want preliminary thoughts on those if that's the right basis for the recommendation and second, of course, is the actual recommends on the properties that the
4:55 am
properties is tina highlighted in her presentation they piloted the ones we're recommending so we are recommending preliminary this is a preliminary recommendations we'll make the final recommendations when the projects come to you the way in sum we're recommending of the 34 properties we would be currently inclined to be unsupportive of 11 based on the policy recommendations on the basis we pointed out on pages three and four of the report so 11 and in our current thinking being unsupportive so to sum up asking for your feedback at this point and for future use thank you. >> now opening it up for public comment
4:56 am
(calling names). >> oh, the academy wants to - >> you're with the academy or representing the academy. >> okay. great. >> i can put it right there on the rail. >> i said i have 10 minutes; is that correct power point. >> very good commissioner president fong and members of the board and director rahaim i'm zane with morris pleased to be here to represent the academy of arts university it has been a its been a long time coming now we have an opportunity to actually discuss the inspire project and
4:57 am
the project sponsor the project sponsor is, of course, the academy of art university it was established in 1929 right here in san francisco and to train work and employ working artists in san francisco working artists in san francisco to 2000 open site arts and faculty and staff and about 8 seven hundred students 45 percent from the bay area and 50 percent from california it is a fully accounted it has a fully accredited universities the first one is, in fact, the au crediting body from the
4:58 am
universities. >> it even has it's own team which is quite success the women's basketball team and students alumni and faculty and i won't go over them some of them are created the winner of the first prize the academy awards and identified by forbes and truly they're making their name for themselves and for the academy
4:59 am
installation wards and accolades in film and after all design this is in the context of an urban campus not a suburban campus and not something that was granted land in the last century to build out over rolling fields it was woolen into the fabric of the city as from the beginning and similar to other inner universities in discussions will be that point i've heard from a number of people the way the nypd is placed in manhattan as opposed to the standard way many associate with the large campuses located in a suburban
5:00 am
area a steward of historic buildings many of the buildings were acquired by the academy and preserved and kept intact because the academy acquired them when they were disused and damaged or in disrepair and great example of that the stained bridget million dollars were spent to renovate, upgrade the seismic capacity that building and also to restore the area right before it was pretty close to lost altogether in addition it provides a thoughtful adjunct to the transportation for muni that muni is a primer way the students get around and through the campus shuttle system that is had not been you get and
5:01 am
according to city staff is, in fact, improved significantly so that's a little bit about the academy let's talk about the project what is the project the project is really entitlements for existing educational facilities continued the academic mission and distinctly not a building by building review of what might happen to one building or another building but consideration and, in fact, that's the way it's been portrait in the e s t m and eir the academy project is a description of all the activities the approvals for educational facilities as you may know are going to be considered at an appropriate time by you and you can see the kinds of
5:02 am
uses all standard traditional academic institutional uses and in addition we seeking approvals for student housing another element is interval to the operation of universities and colleges in fact, the academy of art operates 18 hundred beds and authorized to accommodate 20 percent of onsite students consistent with the directive of the general plan and 2/3rd's of them are clustered close together on central street and union square and sharing lounlz and other dining facilities but you know in this city as we know you don't have a project it is present without offering public benefits and we wanted to highlight now the public benefits that the
5:03 am
academy has offered and wish to communicate them pubically to you at this point. >> and you'll see the areas in which overseeing benefits fall let me review them one at a time in housing the academy will set aside an entire dormitory for one term of long term affordable housing it will create more student housing by convert an existing tourist hotel to student housing that will xruk a new dormitory on an underutilized site next to exist student housing and will meet outline future student housing by adding san francisco housing stock they they make payments a total of $10 million in impact fees for housing and transportation and parks and other public benefits it would be implementing
5:04 am
conditions of approval and mitigation measures these are the ones that have been generally suggested or outlined in the eir and e s t m and refined with the planning staff and ultimately adopted by the planning commission and how we protect the city's interests in seeing those benefits are provided we have the use of a development agreement common doesn't say used to insure that the obligations of the developers are, in fact, performed and the benefits to be conferred on the owner of the property the academy will be honored that will come back but approval by the planning commission of all the terms and
5:05 am
conditions you have to be approved by the board of supervisors a complete policy review and consideration and will have to be done with the advice from the city attorney's office because overall this is guided by the first instance the commission. >> you know closing out if you in fact on this well what happens in the academy didn't behave what happens the academy has proposed a strong enforcement measure that will include negotiating a pint and agreeing to a stipulated judgment for the people non-lawyers adding upon judgment this is in the hands of the city and at the depreciation
5:06 am
from the items are not adhered to can be in court court that provides strong assurance anymore storageer than anything or a lawsuit could provide now looking at the fire chief the academy wants a beneficial policy for all the espn and the eir for conducive dialogue we want to work with the planning department and other city agencies on a package of entitlements and benefits to the whole project like other projects and we lord to that opportunity thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate the recommendation if au. >> opening up for public comment
5:07 am
5:08 am
(calling names). >> sue hester this is going to be a supplement to any written comments we've been dealing with the academy of arts since out of compliance in 1990 this is what they say is their spirit of influence they're interested in acquiring new buildings this is 6 buildings on here but the reality of what the city is dealing with is not only a 6 buildings on the previous sheet but that a good morning ration of residential- if they filed an im p we wouldn't be here today, there 0 would have been commission consideration of this
5:09 am
mass right here that is lower nob hill of upper tenderloin you see this visually the grid is xhaevengsz of residents that is a neighborhood and neighborhood that has historically had a lot of working class housing this was a residential hotels that have dooefrng rooms as well as apartment buildings and what we have had it is decimation of a neighborhood in a e stn we need direction from the commission how to deal with housing first of all, we need to say they must build housing this is what the planning commission would have done at any point had an i imp
5:10 am
and they've increased 5 hundred percent without any direction from the city of how they deal with the increased housing load and the increased campus what you should do is require them to build housing i disagree with some of the parts the staff's recommendation they say you can keep one 50 hayes as an administrative building that sites is surrounding by housing housing that is approved by the department that site which guess triple a number 3 should be absolutely housing it is appropriate, and we got to supply keep a lot of the housing
5:11 am
other people will talk about other aspects but the big thing you need to take home they've decimated the neighborhood we need housing back. >> hello commissioners. i'm chris schaffer i'm a resident of university terrace that is totally surrounded by the university of san francisco and as a neighbor i ended up being an expert in academic institutional master plans even though i didn't plan in contrast to how usf handed the master plan and the comedian academy of art i'm insulted as a resident by some such a bad actor usf let's look at the holistic plan
5:12 am
the attorneys suggested that aau is working on and first of all, housing shouldn't have been taken away from resident a student is not a resident of san francisco usf is building resident 6 hundred plus bed dormitory and figured out how to get that funded the universities should building housing and not take away your the stock and residents and under the holistic approach even if you look at what creation and this group has seen me talk about recreation the academy of art uses 22 facilities mostly public and some private to provide the recreation and i don't know what that one little small center will do for the award-winning teams the third of the issue is transportation
5:13 am
everyone should have a traveling management plan and a student have a fast pass not on muni and not having the vans double parked in the city we have to crawl around the vans on a street their bicycling and the students are not using the bikes not - i really urge you commissioners to ask for a holistic solutions where everyone end up go about a good actor university are a large part of the fabric we need to have them perform in a way that is consistent with the citizens here of san francisco thank you. >> hello commissioners outreaching i've spoken about that before and talked about how i as a landlord get fined every
5:14 am
time i had a violation and, in fact, one of my tenants that owed money to tax had a sheriff in the restaurant collecting from the actual every time a plate got sold why have we not enforced those laws and fines we could be building more housing and allow 24 university to not only take the sros and convert them illegally and allow them to keep on doing this not fine or collect the fines i shouldn't have to pay that business taxes due on the 31st if they get away with murder why don't we not pay once again please they're not getting losses i ride a bicycle
5:15 am
there are a menus you're talking about the environmental consequences and the idling buses and the shuttles going before and after crowding the streets so many reasons to crack down on this school this is going on since the 90s please do you can please protect the public please do so. >> good afternoon, commissioners after a long hiatus i'm back the existing sites technical memorandum talks about the housing less than smaller in demand but the e s t m the data is missing it talks about an increase no housing
5:16 am
displaced and reduction in the housing supplies and what has the city asked did aau to help out the for profit school is not building housing as needed for future populations other nonprofits are building housing and accommodating with master plans and other accommodation in terms of ceqa currently that is level of service but it is going through the vehicle miles traveled what is the total number of miles by the a example u shutters and maybe some of the routes should be disconnected if the report it talks about the emissions studying the air quality management and for car share didn't apply to non-residential buildings and
5:17 am
aau has vehicles that are putting pressure on parking what has aau done with the community to be aligned with the sustainability program and planning need to work with sfmta. >> other agencies to solve this problem. >> let's gather more data for the espn and incorporate them and put them in the understanding it in the upcoming eir in 2016 and had this less than one hundred and 50 words for the minutes it shows exactly what i've talked about thank you. >> thank you and. >> next speaker. >> another card joan. >> good afternoon. i'm magic thank you for hearing go me today, i also last week to ask to refer to the public not the audience seems to be endemic every public meeting we're
5:18 am
audience when is a completely powerfully statement i'll appreciate that changed so i'm not up to snuff as i am but be to an vandal they've broken the law and taken over the law and they're not the fines are not collected and their supposed to be back as bad actors and approve what is done illegally if that's the case an afternoon sense couldn't do that i'm glad the historic - the city college some of this college is breaking the law left and right and in the fined able to go forward and try to make up for what we knew with which is illegal in the first place they
5:19 am
couldn't have not known they're taking unaware way from the pool of affordable housing it is an odd thing affordable housing and i guess what we call unaffordable housing what kind of a society i talked with 5 police officers and used e to live in the city and can't find a place to live in the city some of them are natives this is the academy of science can present a high standard institution and then steal those so needed rooms and housing in the tenderloin and then we say okay. let's all review this and spend public time trying to make it work and fine them a little bit no, they shouldn't be able to break the law and have another chance and the public is saying this for ages it is just plan wrong thank
5:20 am
you. >> good afternoon, commissioners i have some letters here i'm going to to hand i want to mention a few things it seems to me i've been here on one issue we have a problem with enforcement some people have to obey the laws and some are punish and some aren't we're in a situation well, we'll seen this development agreement then we'll start obeying the laws and paying the fines and we'll negotiate that is rather strange i don't believe too many 09 institutions or private individuals will consider making that kind of a statement it seems like it is out of hand this is the kind of issues the
5:21 am
public has to deal with when it comes to this kind of situations we're hoping that has commissioners you will take this situation into consideration and really possibly if there is some buildings they have taken and not done anything wrong los allow those to continue with staff whatever the illegal use i want to thank the enforcement officers a lot of work has been done since lack of enforcement in general as far as i'm aware of at least new money that is gone into hire new people to work on this i think is the general rule that is going forward in the very reasonable fashion somewhat that when it comes to something that big and
5:22 am
this ridiculous as going on for this long 0 all of a sudden say it's okay. people are living industrial and pdr space we're going to prove that and let it go they're two big for us to fight the thank with a building in any neighborhood i understand what was the correct building was allowed to proceed as office space because it was all the building a factory and all industrial and it is supposed to be all pdr but oh, that's okay we'll let it go pdr in the bottom floor i'm quite sure i live nearby and hopefully keep it there and not that let that go by the way those are issues that are driving a lot of public
5:23 am
dissatisfaction it's not your fault i'm not blaum but the city government we'd like to see changes coming down pretty soon if we don't give the public more respect thank you. >> hi my name is marie sorenson i guess the rules of thumb the bigger the sleazier you can act i want to thank the planning for the record why did it take so long academy of art is an insult to taxpayer and homeowners and business owner and renter everything in san francisco people who have followed the rules why is that academy of art never has they operate and future compliance i guess we'll have at city could
5:24 am
go after us how about right now tare they've been not compliant in so - for so many years they operate they operate above everyone else and not have to follow the rules overall after all i have google and this and that it is for property school making millions of dollars let's talk about the buildings they are housing people how many people got evicted so they could put their students in i think that is probably a rather their probably have been a lot of people how about - i'm a homeowner i share a home with two other
5:25 am
people we do projects we have to get continuances we have to get permits we have to pay everyone someone comes over only to turn us down they have a bad day beyond why normal people don't get the same consideration the academy of art is given all those years we struggle and the academy of art have been given a free pass for so long they don't care anymore hold their feet to the fire. >> okay john. >> good afternoon,
5:26 am
commissioners my name is a john i'm very interested to comment on the missing information that is not before you in this informational hearing i'm very concerned about where we have a ray array of data about the properties but one thing that is missing this is who owns those properties what is the name of property owner for those properties and i have seen in the past that the owner is not academy of art and yet academy of art having these properties to use for student housing the private
5:27 am
owner required the properties from the previous owner based on income flow through the properties that was there was really depressed by the fact we have rent control and rent-controlled units having had a income lower if they had been vacant on the market now 80 an owner that turns around and gives this to the institution to basically and the institution does some things maybe the properties get vacated at that point they go to market and institutions and market rents per bed as opposed to what was
5:28 am
rent-controlled unit per unit we're talking about a four or five hundred percent increase in the income coming from the properties to off offer the 4 bed owner and noriega the academy of art i ask you to look at the record and see the use of academy brought us you recruiter students rather than from the state and the federal government how many of the students they've recruited graduated how many of them were spit out and actually were paid for that rent in the housing units and now don't have a certify to go by that's information that should be before you thank you.
5:29 am
>> is there any additional public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is chris martin i'd like to speak on the property conversion of retail to the institutional used as the e s t m states 2295 taylor street is within the north beach neighborhood commercial district and the north beach special use district which encourages medium scale and mixed use commercial residential uses columbus as you may know columbus avenue is the heart of north beach and connects the northern with the northern waterfront and aquatic park the in which commercial district controls are intended to protect and sure the
5:30 am
viability of north beach with its cafes and local teachers and small businesses and new brunswick the aau has done the modifications to taylor street without public review arrest permits assess to the building is rejected and it requires a card-key for entry it is not an tuff storefront and didn't contribute to the active uses along columbus avenue and doesn't stimulate public and dead zone on a boulevard that needs life and activity the building that is on that corner of cellist nut and columbus and taylor a dominant location one of the original gap
5:31 am
that the fischer's opened better use than a studio i'd like to speak about a building i'm familiar my family owned and operated the cannery several years ago the department of the planning a danish known for improving urban centers by the design forwards the pedestrians among the recommendations to create on uninterrupted waterfront promenade improving the pedestrian environment of the wafer and improving the greater frontage quality with sidewalk cafes and encouraging activities the aau at the cannery is counter to his vision creates a dead block and jefferson street many people will viefrn gone the
5:32 am
sidewalk cafes and the retail stores the public spaces that are scomplaptd and festival entertainment and faefrmz and other activities thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is paul wormer i believe that you received an e-mail from the pacific trust on this issue talking about the concerns about illegal conversions the need to replace or restore housing that has been removed from public use and the concern
5:33 am
about the spread i won't go into the first two but point out on the map i'm stealing someone's idea here but those little boxes are the locations today and the colored squares are the study areas so what we're seeing is aau is looking at the city how are we're going to continue our straw now i am a chemist and involved in green house gas emissions and global warming nine out of ten since the early 1990s is there a single contributor reason why we should approve a business with conditional use by the design of property use praedz out over such a large
5:34 am
area is only users a shuttle bus that runs during business hours and into the evening how is that good for the city not only in terms of of green house gas emissions and all the impacts of traffic this stall is really if they're developing a real estate empire and acquiring property as a real estate entity that make sense if you're talking about creating an institution that is certain objectives that requires people to get together and work together this is not good it is not good for the city, it's not good for housing and i guess my substantive comment with respect to the example e p n and draft
5:35 am
eir they're not looking at the problem in those documents and how were you able to assess the real impacts without looking at those sorts of overlays and integration you can make an informed decision about what is being proposed and should those uses be granted owner is clearly fine but what are the uses and is that worth changing what we're doing operate comments on the proposals allow the museums proposals when 33 these come before you thank these come before you thank these come befe you thank you. >> hi, i'm joan part after a theory community you see actresses on stages and hear the
5:36 am
music in clubs most of them don't live in the city years ago this hearing would have been packed with actors committed long term to the city now they're gone they have condominium to other cities they - the obviously it is policy has been it's message to create flaps on the ground you're asked to ratify. every piece of residential building and ever sro that you allow them to convert is an insult to the disappeared locating workers and artist that could have lived there >> thank you. >> public comment? >> not seeing any, public comment is closed. commissioner antonini. >> thanks to staff who did an
5:37 am
absolutely amazing job on the e s t m i was impressed with the authorness and in fact, many cases it crafted impacts if 2010 with 2016 which really gave us the idea what is now happening relate to the impacts in 2010 so i think that is very important i think we have to remember is that there are a lot of things that on a he had to go through the approval process perhaps not be approved perhaps be eliminated but this is a huge institution with a huge impact and we have to bear in mind for example, if housing was eliminated for the students of the academy of art as currently housed they'll be fighting with other people for existing housing somewhere in the city we have to look at that has as
5:38 am
consequence of how this is handled and so one of the things i'd like to to suggest staff is suggesting some of the housing not approved but another mitigating measure would be the approval of the building by the academy of housing to replace the housing used ♪ instances and allow that housing into residential unit that allows it in rent control if this is a building that was old enough for rent controlled that swob would a solution to part of problem i saw our recommendations on various housing i think some of the ones from tourist hotels and other uses that never were long term housing should be allowed to stay i go ago with that you look at carefully the existing housing to see how we create
5:39 am
something that creates new housing and accommodates the need to students who were currently at the academy because there are any institutions in san francisco i was a student that does not provide housing for the graduate students compete in the marketplace >> on the other issue you talked the industrial land i think like most of recommendation we have to be really look at these uses there are possibly somewhere the academy uses those industrial sites for training in the trades and skills needed in industry so that could be considered a pdr use if this is training people in the soft skills that are no longer available we used to have holidays like poly and other
5:40 am
schools that specialized in you know oakland tech it was a technical school a system of public schools worked in training for the skills needed in technical jobs auto shop we don't see much of that anywhere those are important po to look at some of the uses in industrial areas and other things on vacant ground floor retail i think we have to anytime we look at this we have to look at is there a lot of vacant space around where they're using or convert into institutional uses we have to bear in mind when we make our decision as to allow this conversion or not office to institutional uses i think we have to look at the scope of the building too as pointed out by the academy there
5:41 am
are some buildings that might be better suited our an institutional rather than a office space with high ceilings or something that suits itself for that sort of usage that is not as well-used for office anywhere anymore and not we're building a lot of new office we have bear in mind those uses and talk about the religious and those are some of the things a good thing being done by the academy like saint bridges and first congregation that have likely been demolished or possibly would have been if it was taken over over by the academy seismically retrofit and
5:42 am
for profit they pay property tax not the case when we were a rig institution your recommendations sounds like a wise one to me and a couple of other things i noticed in here looks like in terms of process of the planning commission will hear any planning code changes first before the board of supervisors so i think i understand what the process is there your study requests very good it looks like the period from 2010 to 2016 the academy came less dense in terms of number of students number of staff and number of students in shuttles so that was an important to know there was a significant downward trend for a variety of reasons a lot more online and perhaps a lot of students taking advantage
5:43 am
of other types of transportation rather than using the shuttles and then the the other they know might have missed it the signs and window i assume those have been corrected i know we worked the academy for a lot of years to have the signs eliminated and then the life safety changes i think that is important to point out which ones have been done and not done because that is a very first priority to take care of the life safety that remains i like the idea of our draft transportation plan i think a lot of step in the right direction and a long laborious problem the problem will not go away it doesn't make sense this is an existing institution they need to be compliant and pay all the fines and all the things
5:44 am
they've done in the past and then i think this is a big job but happy it is getting started. >> commissioner wu. >> i wanted to ask staff in order to look at himself well, first of all, this report is good a lot of good information the e stn you've created something good whether or not good or bad on the housing you've used the criteria of not recommending approval with higher density how that applies to the building others 1916
5:45 am
octavia. >> yeah. >> sorry giving me one second. >> so the property on 1916 aortic is zoned r507 so it would be the maximize density would be two dwelling units and the last use was says here residential hotel i think i'll have to double check that might be different from we were understanding with when we were evaluating it but generally because rh2 if left to the open market basically revert to a 2 dwelling unit. >> i'd like to see more history maybe i think that the
5:46 am
fact it says illegal use of 22 hotel units brings up a different concept may or may not actually be higher density but maybe the criteria t should look at something more like or like resulting in addition units of housing 22 seems the same to me. >> definitely if we found it was residential hotel. >> there was a mixed history i think the records indicated residential car facility or senior housing but go back on the math it will be converted to a 2 unit building this was an dense use. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you very much i also echo that staff did a
5:47 am
fantastic job on this report a great standard how we look at the properties how they're used and the environmental impacts so this is really, really great work and very helpful for us i remember when we were talking about first started talking about the draft eir and in multiple hearings saw the draft eir the biggest question i believe most of commissioners was well, if the baseline is whatever it is today how can we really make the eir to make the project approvals in the future we know a history to those properties prior to the baseline when the draft eir was created and the espn answers that with the context with the feedback you asked the commission i'll
5:48 am
start with the e stn great work is comprehensive the only thing that i will say about that i appreciated the inclusion of the generation analysis in the transportation appendix but what i try to link that back to the description of the transportation circulation analysis and the housing impact analysis in the e stn some things that are missing i in many cases so when we talk about that we talk about transportation impacts we ocher have started off by talking about parking space as something that tends to induce trips i believe in the can say of an
5:49 am
institution with a campus where especially with the heirs is not just random locations but specific locations that people in that student housing are supposed to be going to you can make an inference between the housing and the level and the amount of trips that will be generate you know where those people are going and i kind of feel like the transportation and circulation analysis and and e stn didn't address that sort of address the way that the placement of their where they choose to have their student housing induces trips and i'm not sure this is part of the housing analysis or the transportation and circulation i felt like that was missing and the reason i say that that is
5:50 am
something key to what i've heard in public utility public comment and various commissioners talking about when they talk about where the housing will be located and whether or not when an inclination to look at the emersed to housing the location the uses those people are going to say not addressed in the espn i would maybe recommend that some sort of analysis statement to that effect be at but otherwise, it is great i think that is a fantastic compliment to the draft eir. >> in port of that comment about the e stn in terms of the will policy drivers drifshgz that denies the plagues i'll follow-up i mean with you for
5:51 am
example, looking at sort of the high-level sort of green and red and in color reasons why the department will support or be inclined to support uses i would say we should talk about explicit whether or not a housing use is in close proximity to the remaining campus for example, whether or not we are inclined to support conversions of certain used to certain other uses i think we should be considering the placement of housing to the uses that the academy of art expects that the students will be going to and disinclined to approve uses that are farther away from administrative and institutional uses i felt like had is something we should be adding an
5:52 am
area we're looking at we're looking at whether or not we're inclined to support or deny a particular case and then 0 i think this is sort of my big one and other than that i have many multiply comments an individual cases from my perspective i'm hoping that is most useful talking about the case individually i believe i'm very supportive generally of how we're grouping the cases in terms of looking at the different uses and the expectations and each assessment will be coming back before the placing and part of our staff report and choose to adopt those conditions of approval if you see factual errors in the e s t
5:53 am
in we'll modify them in your packet to they'll be as complete as possible. >> i don't see any factual errors i think there were a couple of sites in the north beach area and also the marina where i have more specific separate considerations about those particular properties and uses and what is there so i don't know if anything i'll say my impact what is in the e stn or staff report maybe we'll wait until we see the actual. >> - >> i agree they'll be discussed at the hearings. >> thank you. >> i think one person in public comment i forget the name before rose spoke mentioned no consideration of the affordability levels of housing that was converted to student housing and i can see the point i'll say
5:54 am
i felt there was a good discussion in the individual studies of each property over which properties are rent controlled and not i guess the sum to close to talking about the argument we don't have the income levels in particular, the tuff individuals live and work in the unit and finally generally speaking above and beyond any comments about the transportation circulations my perspective on what we're looking at to look at this passage aau is like any 09 institution that means they have to support the infrastructure that they need for their operation and their clients and in this case being the students some place in the organization a u their representative mentioned
5:55 am
aau can be compared to other dense settings the difference i haven't seen in sort of intelligent and smart build out of their infrastructure ation or denying them - an opportunity to guide them or urban campus not just a bunch of sites all over the place and cannibalizing other places in the city thank you very much. >> commissioner vice president richards. >> an awful lot here the first one to really hats off to the staff the stat staff was briernt couldn't have designed if it a
5:56 am
better way with the references specifically page after page after page i realize that and if you add a column to move it in the same colors that my hat's off makes it one hundred percent perfect the memorandum of understanding is amazing i have to fully read it and maybe memorial day weekend but out a source this to other cities a steadfast excellence. >> i know (laughter) now, one the other things i keep on saying every time that coups with a institutional master plan i really be the city needs to understand what the minimum policy thresholds for each institution for housing that needs to be provide for student body i look at difference post
5:57 am
secondary institutions from 2 to 20 percent so we had hastings in the 20 percent and some in the single-digit range that in the future needs to be looked we need to get each institution over a period of time that had been like building a newly creating using existing housing stock i'll say that one more time with that said, i want went to the emergency of pittsburgh spread out over many, many blocks like the aa you, we should shuts we walked a lot of hills not a bad thing we spaced our classes out to get there by walking rather than having to take take the shutter in hearing number one you do not i don't is
5:58 am
a hours or horse in the race but i think around the economic vitally that brought to the city in terms of money that is come in with the students bring and spend like i said with the flip side i think that is what we're dealing with today, the land use issues specifically around housing and i think commercial i guess, sir if you have a minute can i ask you a couple of questions. >> you presented on our slide a project not clear what the project was my question when you said that where do and don't you agree with the staff policy recommendations. >> i think the observations we've had that you have to look at the entire institution and all of the recommendations both for the existing sites that are covered by the e stn and those
5:59 am
sites covered by the eir which are buildings that are nun of which are resential because the question here is how so the academy move forward to function effectively in a way that makes if compatible with this city and improves of presence and tricks some you've mentioned that requires sitting down with the staff very and going through all of their recommendations which the director has said and said subject to change have that dialogue this is a what we're asking for to have that conducive dialogue now that the facts are in i rather than - >> i don't think building by
6:00 am
building duration. >> maybe to staff i can this is call the roll possible it takes time what we're doing on a holistic basis we should look that way if they were today to convert those uses from a to example or x to y what's the terms of avenue nexus study converting the uses of housing what are the fees generated i think one as well well on is flip side if we look at 9 time this building was converted from x to y and went back and made even though determination what are the most fines in terms of fines to get a picture on whether a $10 million settle settle is something we want to look at on a holistic basis i
6:01 am
don't have enough context on the financial impacted from all this activities for lack of a better term so i'd like to see that kind of spreadsheet i don't know well someone brought up the eviction history of the buildings i assumed no evacuees are buy outs but the part on the housing which is a big one in addition to several others if he were to take the units that are sro units and dwelling units and put them on the market the ownership or whether the liability corps that exist our or the trust of the au there would not be much penalty the students pay for semester and we charge them a market-rate i think 72 hours something b if we
6:02 am
look at this in terms of an agreement go back to when we were converted and the rents and add the president 6 percent and say if this tenants stays this is generally what the rent will be i know normally a standard turnover those units were to come back on the market and some type of on agreement should be based on the attrition rates of tenant but costing the tenants who have to be grounded some something logical. >> like the understanding an awful lot in the 7 or 8 hundred pages if we looked at the recommendations i generally agree with staff on the logic behind the recommends i have a couple of questions generally this is the way we want to say
6:03 am
what's the impact in terms of the physical environment so i looked at the map and the goal make sense for the a example u to shrink the footprint to commissioner johnson point more efficient not running shuttle one one person and none on them and traffic issues as well so i think understanding the recommendations and the actual impact on the environment would be something you would have a finger in the wind would be nice i think if there were some type of master agreement there has to be a told her on the tdm or have a shuttle is from want a to b but sorry no more shuttles; right? or increased the ridership we don't want the
6:04 am
impact other than the environment to minimize it with the aau as well. commissioner johnson cannibalized i think the word would be open tunic- there was a concentration in terms of relationship i think the one question on the staff recommendation is we have a real issue we're seeing permits for hotels yeah. i'd look those those sites and determine whether or not a molt can be demolished and made into
6:05 am
a larger industry housing for students back into a higher level of percentage of students that actually live onsite those are far away from the core your i got to get if a to x maybe the molts or backing with the housing dwelling units and retail underneath but as a landlord you have the opportunity to do that that and make trade offs and money i think again, i come back with some type of an overall agreement a lot of ann novelist - the a example u has breached the public trust we kind of needs something akin to tobacco
6:06 am
settlements 25 years of whatever we're going to put money into a pot and address the issues and subtractions and in order to get the public trust back whatever has to have some type of account here's the money and if you step over the line we'll stipulate the judgment thirty days to mc make that better or there's a real way to get this in a timely manner that is looter things i've heard from the public one comment on one of the items one hundred 50 hayes ms. hester brought up should be use as what
6:07 am
it was for so these are my comments >> thank you commissioner moore. >> i think the department deserves a remedies for a wonderful things how this is handled is i'm impressed swpd having said that, that started with the first institutional master plan i've tried to figure out the mission of the school i'm sorry talking about a mission but it's delivery of teaching and in an urban settings what they teach has always been not clear to any of us saying that i think that is correct to observe the acquisition of properties more opportunity driven and the commissioners noted but with that comes indeed by now for definitely deserves a sprawl
6:08 am
what an inability to get of where this conflict is and how severe and what it takes to rectify it is not for me to simply acknowledging their dr a code amendment but i think that has ton driven by a better understanding of how the institution works and how it wants to work in the future because as the institution has grown it has always stated thai didn't want to describe how and where they operate partially because they consider themselves dynamic that's a fine word as 0 the reality of city planning the reasonable growth of policy and reality dynamic is the problem i want to pick up on the transportation comments made by other commissioners, i see for example, the sprawling shuttle
6:09 am
become a liability in order to fully vault the effect one needs to look at where that operates but what is the effectiveness and years and years i think 12 the major observation i happy to live in the middle of the campus the shuttles are empty not only because they're small by the big ones and in between ones are more than 90 percent empty but they keep onoing on and going on but i look at the effectiveness and who and where they're going and why are they going if the first place the memorandum of understanding needs to closer look at the full disclosure what is taught and
6:10 am
how that relates to stds students and study a subject matter a proximity itself between xhamentsdz of students living in close proximity to where they're going to school and what is going on we will continuing push the impacts ahead of us we can't fully gage at some point we have to commit to a more disclosure how the school operates because any of us be it the inner campus commissioner vice president richards went to the urban campus i went to we knew where we were were going it describes we were goes as engineering students or art or business students not changing all the time but in particular case i,
6:11 am
only talk about my experience and the many condominiums there was a changing dynamic we need to bring some more clearly defined explanations to unchanging the dynamics and making the circling more predictable and which buildings how we shape our own ability to support their approval for the institutions the next thing i'd like to say i'm interested to know what in historical preservation jurisdiction and our own what entering was facing we'll jointd looking at the policy issues that deal with what we're concerned about how is that handl
6:12 am
handled. >> there are separate approvals required by the historic preservation commission i mean, we, detail a little bit marrow thoroughly if you want to know about that now but were certainly whether or not that is appropriate to have joint hearings month likely the issues they're dealing with are specific and limited and probably not necessarily to have a great deal of interaction we can look at if it that make sense. >> we should support each other and pro tem other things into play that will be something i'll find permanent helpful i'm as interested in historic preservation as something we feed to support and them to understand our challenges and the last question this is something i might do in a memo to staff i have a couple of questions of traditional clarifications on the excellent
6:13 am
memo and outline on the project update she gave his a number of policies i think there are 6 of them in some of those policies i would like to see additional clarification of what is involved but not be the right forum here to further commit i'd like a few more descriptions in that. >> commissioner hillis. >> so first, i agree with my fellow commissioners on the thoroughness and usefulness of the staff report that was great to synthesize everything and i generally agree with the approach stabilizing the policy rationale behind when faced with the decisions about prfldz hif
6:14 am
those would live in close proximity we'll get for information particularly on the housing and the retail recommendations that are made i think many people brought up the housing issues that the city faces and you know we've taken offline housing how we rectify some of that specifically on the hotel xheshs there is a property on sutter street and 620 sutro i sutter street one requires a conditional use and one didn't specify why that's the case and the history of those, too they
6:15 am
look like they were housing and converted to hotels but as we get more information and you have it now or part of the future discussion on - >> so the 1 open sutter street is that one of them. >> no 817 the commodore and the 620 sutter street in the ones that is the kind of tourists hotels were those sro tourist hotels or? >> for both the legal use tourist hotels the reason for this they're in different zones and close in proximity one in the c-3 has a right and a the others in our core district requires the conditional use authorization. >> so the one in the c g allows student housing.
6:16 am
>> it allows the group housing with as of right in the rc-4 is group housing. >> we get those in the fire chief it would building great to understand the 3 of them when they were operate as kind of tourists hotels that sro slash third tourist hotel we've seen before so some understanding and also you know discussions come up about what percent of that student population is house in aau how that compares to other universities and i know that we've gotten, you know, part of this we're bringing issues related to the cus but the broader how will we enforce that thirty percent of students be
6:17 am
occupied in aau owned facilities and questions about encouraging requiring new facilities be built for housing you know this process didn't necessarily give us that ability the institutional master plan has been not a lot of teeth we talk about it and get accept the institutional master plan and their intent but you know it would be nice to get more teeth to that process as we go you know, i guess when those come back to us some recommendations how we address some of the longer issues brought up but i generally agree where this the the approach that was taken in the recommendations in the staff report. >> director rahaim. >> thank you. i want to kind of summarize what i heard in the commission and give us direction
6:18 am
for the next two weeks the date july 28th that will be the next hearing we'll present the eir to you for conversation as well as the in violation of essentially part of the planning code changes for housing i heard you said they generally supported the policy basis for the early recommendations with one addition which was to look at the assistant housing to the actual san francisco public utilities commission to try to address the transportation i heard a lot of support for looking holistically at all the buildings and looking at the intent of the campus that was kind of the intent for the policy basis recommendations but i think perhaps the thing to side when we come back with the first banish of approvals and disapproved approvals to have a discussion why in the context of
6:19 am
the larger institutional property we'll be recommending approval or disapproval we'll do that a specific request about the octavia building do more research for it this building where under the influence a question of dloefg into the policy basis look at the rationale and look at the benchmarking defines other institutions particularly on percentage of students that are housed trying to do that as well and then also at whole history of how the buildings but used if possible and looking at the potential fines and fees paid in the past having the building gone forward legacy that's the
6:20 am
list i'm sure staff was taking notes but the list from the commissioners questions or comments into the next phase. >> okay commissioner moore. >> i wasn't. >> - >> okay. thank you very much great staff work additional look forward to the next hearing in july. >> commissioners just as reminder 10 ab have been continued to june 2nd so the only remaining item on the agenda is general public comment. >> okay. any general public comment this afternoon. >> we'll let the room clear
6:21 am
out for a second. >> okay continuing on general public comment hello, again commissioners so as you all know we're fighting for the soul of our city each of us no matter position has an ethical obligation to help our community from becoming for profit playground for the rich i don't blame the rich or any of you we're part of the society that
6:22 am
likes the rich and the famous for the soul purpose now is profit we're here before you with a deeper soul purpose to keep our teachers and laborers to raise their children and take care of their elderly i've been to thousands of public meetings over the years like this one and time after time i've witnessed adjoin plans amended, zoning changed and financing offered from the city coffers when the public makes the case to live and work and breathe easier we're often told you're hands are tied there is always a way to defend the communities with will by supporting the essential purpose of laws that is to enhance a vibrant cultural and community be creative and listen to the
6:23 am
publics comments and find a way to make sure that the beast only bryant is not a deficit to our city we're glad to hear this is delayed to off more chances to negotiate with the developer and hopefully, they come to the table and listened and see do proposals public school not - this didn't have a enough of a profit factor this must be part of it from the beginning. >> let me call a few more names come on up, sir (calling names). >> yes david gibson thank you very much for letting me
6:24 am
continue rewarding 10 ab you people have to stop this so is the mayor and public supervisors you will have to stop this i'm tired people sleeping on bart trains and laundry mats that will add this has to stop two weeks of extension to meet with the people the private developers that's the bottom line this is has to stop, stop this nonsense thank you. >> good afternoon again commissioners i e-mailed a letter a couple days ago but probably got mary again, i'm not going to read the
6:25 am
entire letter but thank you for continuing this matter we believe areas of negotiation with the developer and it is good we have the time and hope that you will, of course, consider this things we've been asking for about one to one replacement for pdr and i guess sort of what we are seeing once again the deals with made and we just need to remember the people out in the streets who lost their homes because of these deals were made i guess was a shooting today so we'll be hearing about that again and how do we keep those situations from happening it seems like i saw the media ready to do a really big one day
6:26 am
event with they'll deal with the homeless on the 29 i guess of this month and this is got to be contributing to the homeless situation that's what we're really concerned about we're concerned about the homeless situation you've got to be concerned about gentrification because this is basically what is pushing everyone out of their homes and some people can afford to move to vallejo and some people not afford to move by allowing the affordable units and the affordability of the city to continue to skyrocket or slide or, however, you want to describe it we're contributing to the whole situation certainly not holding you getable but mart of the process, however, to slow
6:27 am
it down is appreciated thank you. >> hi good afternoon, commissioners i'm tracey from pacific factory from the be on bryant coalition and media alliance i want to say to you this afternoon as you consider this project and continued it once again that i'm really hoping you'll start lookings in a holistic way this is not the only mission based luxury project you'll see 6 more in the pipeline coming in the next 3 to 6 months and this is for a neighborhood where we have reached saturation point according tour how studies in the luxury housing marketplace a while guarantee
6:28 am
ago what are we are doing we're studying and making the problem worse there is a disconnect between our stated tings and goals and the actions we're tail taking what the not possible but predictable outcomes as those actions sometimes that happens we're not looking at things holistically but taking them project by project we can't afford to do that anymore in particular situation you have a concrete community-based proposal probably not perfect no proposal is but lace out the kind of taxed axes to turn those projects one by one into things we'll not center the exact predictable outcomes that we are saying in our reports over and over and over and over again, we
6:29 am
can't have the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results 42 hours that needs to stop this project is a good place to say if we want different outcomes do different things i encourage you to take advantage of this period of time to do something different and to do something better for our city and for this neighborhood thank you. >> hello commissioners my name is jonathan i stood there this commission 16 years ago and was asking the president annette harris if she would imagine a future of san francisco without arts a san
6:30 am
francisco without musicians, a san francisco without communities or color and she was frustrated with my comments i was doing it in the voice of her grandchildren and asking grandmother why this way would certificate of occupancy you have done and anyway she took about 30 seconds of my time to scold the audience for getting animated at which point i got my time back and i had 3 minutes and going to continue it speak the full 3 minutes even though you took 3 minutes of my time the buzzer rank they gaefld for a sheriff bailiff that wrestled
6:31 am
me to the ground and made first page in the san jose and san francisco chronicle and open tribune and ran for two days on the news battle gets ugly this is an opportunity now to initiate some policy changes that mandate community planning process i was unfortunate to be part of community with the citizens housing in 2002 and the mosaic project is the result what happens we undertook nonprofit sell space was an organization he was the founder a community partner and other nonprofits we made every effort to reach out to all the stakeholders as a result we met
6:32 am
for months and months and hammered out the delays as a result when the project was feinstein sort of inenvisioned was approved if we don't do a community planning process we had over 200 people confirmed to speak that is because they have not been heard the developer is not willing or interested in meeting with the community interested in satisfying the wall street real estate investors and not the community thank you. >> speaking of wall street the genisis part of j.p. morgan chase requiring 20 percent returns that's part of why o'dell is not having the money
6:33 am
to do anything other than the absolute minimum this is the biggest project from the mission in a while and there hadn't b&b been any affordable builder now the opportunity to work it we did a rough sketch which is here of what amount of profits we'll see by the minimums this is $18 million in profits i think there is wiggle room those are figures based on meetings with olsen and the community and builders association who calm came up with the idea of 6 hundred thousand to build a project we've not seen his book like across the street he will meet with some of our people that would then sign a
6:34 am
confidentiality and agreement and go over the performa to see if there is any widen room it is k s we'll figure out the best deal more affordable housing that will retain and protect the pdr lost this is the backbone of the mission with blue-collar jobs with spanish speaking without an education and earner for your family the propaganda from them pr if i remember, he will take a blighted block and build this was two years ago a 24r50i6r8 community two years ago union jobs doing work that is shipped out to canada works
6:35 am
auto repair middle-income guys were raising a family and jonathan talked about this building has such a potential we have moderate plan that is asking for 10 thousand more square feet that makes it a 50 percent affordability we're thankful the pressure of right thing to do didn't happen we'll sit with them and hopefully, will be able to do something i've raised on the phone a couple million dollars for people willing to put with local 261 come up with 500-0000 and money we don't require 20 percent we require - thank you. >> okay. any other general
6:36 am
public comment. >> my name is a andy a paradox in the artistic community honorable this is the very first time i'm addressing government in a way no with a drama or a raised fist i'll coming to speak to government and say i don't hold you in contempt for you actions this time we're in is one way the government is clearly seeing more the first time in a participatory way to be called to communicate with the people there is a democracy being born it is different than what has been before and in this time people will come and they will want to share and have strategies
6:37 am
they will have ideas they will crowd fund they'll find ways to raise the money and find ways to communicate to their constituency and actually create something of value for them skigz the communication that is vitally it is the communication that happens between us the people and you the representatives that speak to the greater representatives that sets the codes and laws there are manager i can't tell - people who have not the most money can afford to send their agents to be manipulated to do their bidding tailor wise people
6:38 am
that live here willing to work with you, please please listen to us before it's down to torchs and pitch forecloses it's changing we all know 24 so, please just consider what time we're in and there are very many people willing to work with you and the strategies that can afford an actual communication with the people not just the one percent thank you very much. >> (calling names) and good afternoon, commissioners i'm sorry eric i just want to talk about commemorative effects of the
6:39 am
mission we are founder of the latino cultural we have 5 large developments that are coming in the latino cultural district within the next month or two and we're talking about 2 thousand market-rate housing into the mission we really need to look at the bigger picture of what is happening i know we're not down or done with the map yet not in place we need to slow down and look at the projects how they can benefit the community right now what we're seeing with the developers they're creating a lot of smoke and mystery as well as the benefits to the community we have to look at those projects closely and looking at how they add up to what they're putting out to the media and community and the benefits to the community they're really not
6:40 am
not - you know those numbers are coming out not accurate been i medium of the folks in the neighborhood i'm from the neighborhood we need to look at the numbers add them howe up how they benefit the community we're also requesting in the district hopefully, a report for a social economic report for the eastern neighborhoods plan did an eir with the latino cultural district was not in place at that time, we need to look at things that didn't work yesterday so i'll ask you to look at things closely and making sure they truly benefit the community thank you. >> my name is kim i'm here to talk about 2000 bryant i live in the outer mission i'm butt in
6:41 am
this is setting back the precedent in the mission what other projects will look like setting the precedent in excelsior or tenderloin with people where they live it is good you delay and i'm hoping you'll keep the pressure on what is happening in the city we want to doing everything we can to fix it i'll conclude what someone said about manhattan you can say about a city of rich people and good things to say about a city of mostly rich people but not say is interesting. >> good afternoon. my name is rodney i'm here to talk about what i've been seeing i'm an
6:42 am
artist an educator so iuoe i talk about what is happening in both of those areas my friends and coworkers are leaving they can't stay here when you put like the beast on bryant and the other developments in the city and call them market-rate housing they can't stay here they're picking up their practices and not moving just away from san francisco to the eastbound or richmond that's getting tapped out not oakland or vallejo my friends were teacher where i work in san francisco at independence high school they can't afford to live here close to their work to the point where a friend of mine her
6:43 am
sister sister-in-law and brother their choices are seattle and portland people have to pick up and leave people educated and professionals their department of human resources and nurses their you are your accountant people that provide the mid-level services they can't stay here my friends artists most people think of artist they sort of live and work make sure we are flakey most of artists are 9 to 5 and 9 to 12 job they can't stay here because of the concerns of work and live and how they'll make money for them this is too much they much rather move to new york where their supported y where their supported in
6:44 am
neither culture and value in what they do than stay in the bay area it is just makes you sad to that is my friends are to the that the it is just leaving so where does that leave you you don't know you don't have people to teach our kids and things are the sample it is a drop in the acknowledging population here they've been leaving for years so with the beast on bryant we're asking as you people said earlier it is setting a precedent a bad precedent where a splap in the face for people po that love and bought into the is various cultures and can't stay here thank you very much.
6:45 am
>> next speaker >> hello commissioners i'll be brief peter with the cultural action network and thank you for the continuance this is an important step to figure out something i want to talk about a couple of things in a general way i think the breast on bryant is in a strong relationship to i'll ask you to think we add to the population about 200015 luxury units into the mission in the pipeline we don't think the mission is with stand that that doesn't destroy the economic fabric that's the way the commission community is viewing this we don't think that is necessary like collin shared numbers love to see the developers numbers from the mainline is this is legal i can't afford it anymore we would like to see the performas this
6:46 am
is a minimum offer still you know my parents see us in the news on the east coast and my mother from graham called i'm i going to get evicted we're on tv amend from guatemala we have developers with minimum offers this is what a the community is shocked by that a minimum offer will be pushed forward a 35 be offsite dedication which while the media is confused it is a 26 percent of footprint dedication; right? a minimum dedication they can do a lot more 26 percent of foot he paid $9 million that is where he is mathematically we would like to see the numbers on mission street he shared his numbers
6:47 am
with the community as spike showed 100 percent union build and pdr retention 200 and 13 percent owe over our mission of pdr loss and a 50 percent land dedication a significant profit at least on our back of napkin we only do the math the developers do we would like to see the real math and know that the developer can do more and people are working in this room working to find initiative solutions to finance this we appreciate the continuance and let's ask the developer to do a lot more thank you very much i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> hi commissioners rick haul
6:48 am
i was here last week and spoke on the portland project at the at the time quotient repeat i was talking about the eastern neighborhoods plan and it's pace and the rezoning and a lot of issues that are clearly problematic at this time but i stayed and listens to the q and a and he was somewhat concerned i'm glad for the beast now there say we have two weeks i think there is something you guys use that those weeks for in addition to the things such heard about when i watched planning answer mr. richard questions last week about where we stand in the plan and the numbers it was interesting but
6:49 am
the day she didn't present and the questions she didn't answer or answered with a different question her numbers show the basis for the eir that the q and a requires are are obsolete numbers with options abc that were studied without telling you the exact figures that were applicable to the plan between b and c i'm sure they know the numbers they've shared them in the pdrs she not limited to we're clog to being at a point they can't be approved and averted the conversation how thai keep up with the changes and the impacts and mitigations
6:50 am
along the way to be sure what neither recommending a c pe they'll not recommend if they feel they shouldn't feel did that mean planning is redefining the basis with now impacts and mitigations when they're considering how they feel about recommending a c p e is that possibly a legal measure i sincerely doubt the commission has a duty from accepting recommendations on this basis you know and until it is cleared up i'll be recommending you dr c p e for example, in the mission the projects that show net housing units completed or under environmental impact as of 2016
6:51 am
i'll leave it for you. >> any other general public comment this evening okay not seeing any, general public comment is closed. and the the meeting is adjourne
6:52 am
6:53 am
6:54 am
6:55 am
6:56 am
6:57 am
6:58 am
6:59 am
7:00 am
>> how are you >> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of appeals. wednesday, may 18, 2016,